Value added scores for independent schools

And I know of plenty of state schools who have much nicer grounds and buildings and far better facilities than ds's independent school.

I still believe he is getting a better education where he is (and dh and I have direct experience of working in four of them).

I see some posters saying that other posters 'queue up' to talk about wasting money quite a lot. I might almost say they queue up to do so.

Lots of private schools have lovely grounds and nice buildings and observatories and stuff. Clearly!

I think quite often private school is a waste of money. There are huge numbers of private schools that exist solely because people are terrified of the state system, and like a pretty uniform - particularly at primary level. There are two like that within a couple of miles of my house. But there are also huge numbers that aren't. And I just can't believe that anyone ever told HG that the state could offer what Winchester can-what with the fees being eyewatering an' all.

martorana posters say that all the time...

You get people queing up to say private school is a waste of money because their state school offers X, Y or Z too.

Or you get people telling you that what your school offers is dire and they most certainly do not want what it offers. Again you've wasted your money.

MN seems keen as a group to watch my purse for me ...

Didn't the girl who tweeted "our president barraco barner" have 17 GCSEs?

If you don't want to engage then that's up to you. But it's a shame. What you say is interesting.

Ok Martorama your right no one has ever said that.

I am absolutely certain that nobody ever said that any state school could offer the same range of extracurricular activities as a top 5 public school.

You may agree with me Martorana but a surprising number don't as Im sure you well know.
Anyway my point is that much of value added is unmeasurable and it's a crude measurement and encourages governments teachers parents to focus on a very narrow meaning of the word education.

"I recently commented on another thread on the enormous difference between what a handful of top independent schools offer (not once have I said it was fair) and the rest be they state or independent and half of MN were queuing up to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about. Reeling off the wonderful opportunities their state/independent school offers. "

Happygardening- you are always saying this- and I really think you must have misunderstood. Of course the opportunities, both tangible and intangible, and facilities at the top public schools are fantastic. Why else would people pay the extraordinary sums of money they cost?

Rabbit your posts are (as always) interesting. I recently commented on another thread on the enormous difference between what a handful of top independent schools offer (not once have I said it was fair) and the rest be they state or independent and half of MN were queuing up to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about. Reeling off the wonderful opportunities their state/independent school offers.
Whilst are government and indeed parents, patients, clients, relatives feel that things like education health care, social care etc need to be tightly measured to ensure the necessary standards are being maintained and let's not forget funded then these things will always be narrow and prescriptive and the best in their particular fields will feel disillusioned and their thinking out of the box ability will be stifled. So perhaps it's better if we don't encourage our DC's to have a broad mind expanding education because it's likely that their work won't want people who can think slightly differently.
Re the taking of far too many GCSE's many years ago my DH employed a boy with 14 GCSE's nearly all grade B or above, he was the doziest muppet you could ever meet, devoid of life skills, stamina, creative skills, initiative, interest and culture (he'd only ever read 1 book), he described Venice as "that place with the water" I don't accept this is what employers want. A few less GCSE'sand few more life skills however acquired are what employers want in the 21st century.

Yes, but the experience of sport, music and drama at Backwater comp are not likely to be the same as sport, music and drama at Winchester. And the minute parents start to complain about the quality of their children's experience, or lots of fat, unhealthy children start coming out of school the other end, the Government starts weighing and measuring everything to see what's going wrong, and this then becomes part of the problem, because everyone loses interest in the unmeasurable bits. Everything seems to be weighed and measured these days with a view to the bottom line (another measurable thing) and nobody wants to admit that quality of life is pretty sh*te, particularly for our children who are being fattened up ready for the economic sausage machine, if that's all you're bothered about.

GCSE's are school leaving exams but where is the evidence that employers as part of a "certificate of competency" need children to have 12? Those who have 12 and are not planning to do A levels are also likely to have lower grades and therefore really would benefit from doing less and getting higher grades in the ones they do. Perhaps they would also benefit from the time freed up by doing less to participate in other things that are non examined I don't accept that drama music and sport has to be examined. Win Coll offer neither sport (unsurpsingly ) or drama at IGCSE or Pre U but both thrive within the school.
I'm not holding a Win Coll up as the perfect model by any stretch of the imagination I'm trying to say that added value can come in lots of ways that are not easily measured.
Perhaps it's parents that need "educating" as much as governments teachers and employers.

Isn't that one of the debates between Michael Gove and teachers at the moment? ie how knowledge and skills intertwine, and whether there is currently sufficient emphasis on retained knowledge from which to make links and build skills?

Without seeing the syllabus Rabbit I can't say for sure whether parents are justified in being irate but often, lack of communication/ understanding fuels these rows.

Re your next post If our background knowledge has to be that good before starting to learn to make links there is no hope for most of us, is there?

ZeroSomeGameThingy - yes, I would agree that an educated, intelligent person would be able to make links. However, there is considerable disagreement as to the point at which people should be able to make such links, and whether they should have a firm grounding in Western European art history, Western European music, Christianity, British history, Latin, etc, first, or whether they can leap straight in there and be taught skills without certain universally agreed background knowledge. A good knowledge of the history of Christianity in this country, and of the Bible, for example, are most useful in understanding Western European art. Not hugely useful in helping with Indian art, or Islamic art, of course, although if you know one well, you at least have a firm foundation from which to make links with another.

Yes, but Slipshodsibyl, can you not already hear the irate parents clamouring at the schools' doors, asking why their children must be exposed to such things? Or is it just on mumsnet that we hear these complaints?!

X post with Zero.

Rabbit, a lot of literary theory pertaining to Shakespeare over the past 25 years has focused on historical context and the subversion inherent in them. Some, slightly less popular, has been overtly political. This has trickled down to A level. There is a lot subversion in the arts our children are likely to encounter at school.

The current inclusion of Russell Brand and Dizzee Rascal in OCR s English A Level will likely include this kind of analytical practice when studied. In the classroom I think ( haven't seen the syllabus but that's what I guess). It is too easy for the media to shout Russell Brand = dumbing down. Good practice is about making links.

rabbitstew I think quite a few "educated" people would assume that education means being able to relate Jerry Springer to Shakespeare - and from that synthesis make an intelligent argument about what people might want from (say) the monarchy or religion or entertainment in 50 years time.

Div would be perfectly suited to any school - with tweaks for different levels of capacity. There would be a problem in that insufficient teachers have had an education that allows them an overview of subjects and to make links between them.

The other problem is that GCSEs are school leaving exams, intended to show employers that students have reached a certain level. The need for these won't go away. WIn Coll type students have no need of a certificate of competency at 16 because their equivalent will happen later and at a higher level.

I am not sure what will happen to high culture and the canon in future. I've always felt that if children weren't introduced to it then it would forever be alien to them and would be another barrier to moving into establishment type jobs. But it doesn't need to be either Introduced or tested in writing - it can be done orally, physically - that is the beauty of Div and is why it would suitable for all in an educational utopia.

Maybe happygardening's ds has been asked to listen to Jerry Springer the opera? Or has attention mainly been on the historically great composers?

ZeroSomeGameThingy - at what point did I say ALL theatre and art have been safely homogenised? I said that Shakespeare, Dali and (most) opera had.

You can even "test" someone's voluntary work via the Duke of Edinburgh awards.

You honestly, honestly believe that all theatre and all art have been safely homogenised into the establishment?

Why aren't you protesting?

Oh! By real education I meant being thought to think as well as to perform in the prescribed fashion. Education ought to be dangerous.